I'll be voting no to Proposition 1 Tuesday and so far yes to 2 & 3.
There are too many projects in 1 that do not benefit enough equally. Seriously, press box renovations ::)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4392798945_7f585d4f2b_o.jpg)
Go read the specifics and get the numbers for yourself before voting ,since the media won't do it for you.
http://www.tulsaschools.org/pdf/TPSbondProposal2010.pdf
Oh and $8,000,000 also comes out of Prop. 1 for the Bond Managment Fee
I am voting yes on this issue and the other three.
It is easy to find a thing or two in any list that you don't think is important, but I believe such shallow thinking is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are some much needed improvements on that list you posted and they are important enough for me to support the issue.
First of them to me is the renovation of East Central High School. The schools did a 20 year plan that has led past bond issues to renovate Washington High School in north Tulsa and the building of new Field Elementary in west Tulsa. It is time for east Tulsa to get their needed improvements.
Another area of need this issue supports is the classroom additions to replace trailers used at classrooms. The school closest to our home is Lindbergh that had 200 extra kids show up the first day of school. Children have to run to mobile home type trailers for classes then back between classes. The trailers don't even have bathrooms. I can't imagine having to run in the rain between buildings to do something as basic as going to the bathroom.
I also feel strongly about the improvements to the sports facilities. Face it, school pride achieved through athletic achievements can be a very strong motivator for kids wanting to be there. I saw my alma mater, Will Rogers High, go from state champions in many sports to a school where kids are embarrassed to be associated with the school so much that they no longer participate in anything.
Vote yes. Your property taxes will not go up and schools that work do so much for our future.
Look at what % the ECHS is out of that.
In the '70s we had what was called pre-fabs at Burbank and Bell , we survived. My kids went the Mitchell and survived the trailers. Besides Mitchell already replaced the trailers years ago ...hmmm
I don't mind aome of the projects in Prop. 1 but I refuse to vote yes just to get a few truely needed things done.
Be a Roper not a Doper and vote "No" on proposition 1... lol
Quote from: MDepr2007 on February 28, 2010, 08:56:50 AM
I don't mind aome of the projects in Prop. 1 but I refuse to vote yes just to get a few truely needed things done.
I guess we will just have to cancel each other's vote out.
I want great schools. Great schools lower the crime rate, raise property values, and create great communities to live.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 28, 2010, 08:09:13 AM
It is easy to find a thing or two in any list that you don't think is important, but I believe such shallow thinking is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I agree. To vote against what is a pretty long and worthy list because you might find one or two things that are
possibly questionable is myopic and stupid. If you keep waiting for perfection, you're going to be waiting for a long damned time.
+1 to what RM said, though one concern is how high the bond management fee is. I have no idea what is customary. Anyone else know?
I also agree about better sports facilities having a lot to do with school pride. TPS keeps falling further behind the suburban schools in athletic performance and participation. Yes I understand the point of school is education but sports have always been an integral part of the scholastic experience.
The good in prop I far outweighs any negatives I could pick out of it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 28, 2010, 09:25:25 AM
I guess we will just have to cancel each other's vote out.
I want great schools. Great schools lower the crime rate, raise property values, and create great communities to live.
I want great schools also. But facilities alone won't accomplish that. To get great schools, you need parental involvement. Spending on press boxes and tracks, etc. won't get parental involvement. Some parents are just losers who view school as nothing more than day care. Change that kind of thinking, and we can achieve great things in TPS.
Quote from: Markk on February 28, 2010, 12:16:19 PM
I want great schools also. But facilities alone won't accomplish that. To get great schools, you need parental involvement. Spending on press boxes and tracks, etc. won't get parental involvement. Some parents are just losers who view school as nothing more than day care. Change that kind of thinking, and we can achieve great things in TPS.
Your point on parental involvement is dead on. Ive been an educator for 11 years and student success is 90% based upon parents in my opinion. Now saying that the rest of your argument is flawed. The fact is there are tons of great involved parents out there. The problem for TPS is so many of them flock to the suburbs. By making our schools nicer wouldnt is help convince some of those parents to stay? Your point on athletics is also wrong. Do you know how many parents who live in Union, Jenks, or Bixby go to those schools for the nice facilities and athletic programs. It maybe sad but its true.
I teach in an excellent school in the burbs. We have a great staff, students, and parents. But I will be sending my son to TPS. There are some really great schools in TPS. We need nice great schools in Tulsa if we are going to compete with other cities for jobs. People will not want to move here with our current infastructure.
Im still on the fence over this, so im looking for some good selling points either way.
On one hand I see money wasted on things like more cameras (yes, they worked so well keeping kids safe in Columbine) but on the other there are some legitimate needs that shouldnt be postponed.
It seems we just cant spend needed money without watering it down with pork.
Say Prop. 1 passes, how does TPS plan to pay for teachers at a new Early Education Center ? How does TPS plan to pay for another teacher in each added pre-k room that would be built. How do they plan to pay the added utilities that the new rooms and building will add?
Isn't TPS having trouble paying the employee's they now have?
Maybe they can use they can use the $8,463,070 thats listed as contingency :-X
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 28, 2010, 09:47:11 AM
I agree. To vote against what is a pretty long and worthy list because you might find one or two things that are possibly questionable is myopic and stupid. If you keep waiting for perfection, you're going to be waiting for a long damned time.
Yet many of us expect this from our politicians ;D
Quote from: MDepr2007 on February 28, 2010, 07:43:34 PM
Say Prop. 1 passes, how does TPS plan to pay for teachers at a new Early Education Center ?
...
Maybe they can use they can use the $8,463,070 thats listed as contingency :-X
Those programs are very well compensated by the federal government. They end up paying for most of the operating cost.
Are you seriously taking issue with a 3% contingency fund? Really? ::)
Have you ever been involved in any kind of construction, or are you just talking out your donkey?
I'm not particularly excited about seeing $41 a month evaporate out of my budget, but I would like good schools in my city enough to consider it a worthy investment. There are definitely districts that overspend on capital improvements, but TPS is not one of them.
My mind was made up on this issue long ago, so I won't get into any argument about it. I more or less agree with MDepr2007, and will be voting no.
What really irritates me is the publicity they keep showing on TV and pictures in the paper, scenes of missing floor and wall tiles at ECHS, ceiling tiles askew. This is just willfull, intentional neglect, shown to encourage a yes vote. Any competent maintenance man should be able to reset and replace a missing tile or repair a condensation leak. The schools waste far to much money IMO.
Proposition 1 has some good things and some unnecessary things. I will be voting yes, because the good things, the needed things are very much needed. Take the Lee School cafeteria. That may seem surperfluous, but it is extremely important. The cafeteria was not built to feed the number of children that currently attend the school. Therefore, lunch must be spread out over several hours in order to accomodate the kids. Some are going to lunch as early 10:45 (and are starving by the end of the day). Others have to wait until nearly 1:00. The breakfast program has difficulty accomodating everyone. Any teacher will tell you that teaching hungry children just doesn't work.
Quote from: Steve on March 01, 2010, 09:35:46 AM
My mind was made up on this issue long ago, so I won't get into any argument about it. I more or less agree with MDepr2007, and will be voting no.
What really irritates me is the publicity they keep showing on TV and pictures in the paper, scenes of missing floor and wall tiles at ECHS, ceiling tiles askew. This is just willfull, intentional neglect, shown to encourage a yes vote. Any competent maintenance man should be able to reset and replace a missing tile or repair a condensation leak. The schools waste far to much money IMO.
What was the last Tulsa Public School you have physically been inside? In the past 6 months I have been inside Memorial, East Central, and Will Rogers; the neglect is far from "willful or intentional". How you can sit back and deride the effort to improve the environment in which people try to educate the youth of our city is the part that is willful and intentional neglect.
I'm kinda surprised that my daughter's school, where she attends class in an unsecured prefab building without even a locked door or gate for security, is scheduled for renovation money in the 2030 bond cycle. I expected $350M to go a bit further than it does.
Since my kids' school is in excellent condition and staffed very well, I will be voting "no" as well. There is just no benefit to me and my family by passing this bond issue. :P
jk.
Quote from: guido911 on March 01, 2010, 01:17:10 PM
Since my kids' school is in excellent condition and staffed very well, I will be voting "no" as well. There is just no benefit to me and my family by passing this bond issue. :P
jk.
Hateful, just hateful. You probably were stepping over wounded people having chicken at 3am yesterday morning too, weren't you?
Quote from: OSU on March 01, 2010, 12:12:41 PM
What was the last Tulsa Public School you have physically been inside? In the past 6 months I have been inside Memorial, East Central, and Will Rogers; the neglect is far from "willful or intentional". How you can sit back and deride the effort to improve the environment in which people try to educate the youth of our city is the part that is willful and intentional neglect.
WOW!! Get a grip OSU. I was simply relaying my opinions about the media advertisements for this issue, and my opinion remains the same.
My kids attended Eugene Feild before and after the new school was built ( In fact, one of the facutly decided to have fun with my son's noteriety and wrote "Houston was here" real big on the principles wall of the old building before they tore it down), and now have their names imprinted on the sidewalk in front of the main entrance. The changes that occured there because of this rebuild was chalked all full of good. Little things like a decent library and a gym can help out. Now they are in middle school, and living in EC's area. This is the high school I attented, and even 15 years ago it needed to be revamped, so I can imagine what it needs now. While I'm not on the whole "we need the sports" bandwagon, I won't say no to improving the school because that is on the bill. I, for one, have a serious stake in this, my childrens future, and it bothers me that others will say no to that because of a couple of things they don't like.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 01, 2010, 01:45:47 PM
Hateful, just hateful. You probably were stepping over wounded people having chicken at 3am yesterday morning too, weren't you?
That was me!!! Seriously though, I think everyone knows I cannot vote on anything TPS due to my numerous felony convictions (either that or the fact that I do not live in the district).
Quote from: OSU on March 01, 2010, 12:12:41 PM
What was the last Tulsa Public School you have physically been inside? In the past 6 months I have been inside Memorial, East Central, and Will Rogers; the neglect is far from "willful or intentional". How you can sit back and deride the effort to improve the environment in which people try to educate the youth of our city is the part that is willful and intentional neglect.
Then why did East Central get a new stadium/field before renovating the school?
Why did Will Rogers get a field house built before the school was put in better shape?
Why does the current Prop1 have 3 field houses in it at a higher cost than renovating East Central?
Quote from: MDepr2007 on March 01, 2010, 05:14:48 PM
Then why did East Central get a new stadium/field before renovating the school?
Why did Will Rogers get a field house built before the school was put in better shape?
Why does the current Prop1 have 3 field houses in it at a higher cost than renovating East Central?
Those improvements have and will change the schools. What do you think happens in a field house? It becomes much more than just a place to have basketball games.
I think you are just trying to find any argument possible. This is not needed (in your opinion), this was done in the wrong order (in your opinion), we should just use the internet to teach the youngins (in shadows opinion).
I went to Memorial 15 years ago, I couldn't take a poop during school hours for 3 years of highschool because they willfully didn't have doors on the stalls. To hell with them and their bond issue. I vote no. TPS brings their low ratings on themselves.
Quote from: brianh on March 02, 2010, 08:36:06 AM
I went to Memorial 15 years ago, I couldn't take a poop during school hours for 3 years of highschool because they willfully didn't have doors on the stalls. To hell with them and their bond issue. I vote no. TPS brings their low ratings on themselves.
Strangely enough I remember BA doing that in some cases to fight our imaginary rampant cocaine use.
We practically all looked like Tony Montana by third hour.
BTW, how's the turnout supposed to be for this thing? I was 2nd at my station and I didn't get there until 7:15. There's normally many more votes cast by then.
Quote from: brianh on March 02, 2010, 08:36:06 AM
...they willfully didn't have doors on the stalls.
Reminds me of Boot Camp.
Quote from: Townsend on March 02, 2010, 09:14:28 AM
BTW, how's the turnout supposed to be for this thing? I was 2nd at my station and I didn't get there until 7:15. There's normally many more votes cast by then.
About 56 at 11:30 in my neighborhood.
Hopefully this passes. I can't imagine it NOT passing but still worried there are a lot of misinformed people who are voting.
I ended up voting yes for 2,3,and 4, but no on 1.
Wow. I am amazed at the debate here. (And my expectations are generally pretty low.)
I wonder if there was a period of time before the Dark Ages when people were wondering "when did education and enlightenment become a bad idea...?"
So you would prefer not to replace the roofs on 10 schools. You would prefer to have them suffer excessive water damage, and then pay to fix that later at 10-times the cost? You would prefer not to replace old windows? You would rather continue to pay the increased energy costs from leaky windows? (Oh yeah, and more water damage...)
You would prefer to continue to see young families move to the burbs where they have "nice facilities" and where the communities are willing to "invest in education..."
Save a penny, waste a pound...
If you want to attract people to Tulsa we need good schools. This includes good facilities and well-maintained buildings. It's also acceptable to upgrade technology. (Oh, the times, they are a changin...). And buy books. And support arts education. And physical education.
Voting "yes" will not raise your taxes. This will simply continue what you're currently paying...which is nothing when you compare Tulsa to any other city in America.
I can't decide if we're so stupid b/c we're so cheap--or if we're so cheap b/c we're so stupid.
Quote from: PonderInc on March 02, 2010, 03:30:20 PM
Wow. I am amazed at the debate here. (And my expectations are generally pretty low.)
I wonder if there was a period of time before the Dark Ages when people were wondering "when did education and enlightenment become a bad idea...?"
So you would prefer not to replace the roofs on 10 schools. You would prefer to have them suffer excessive water damage, and then pay to fix that later at 10-times the cost? You would prefer not to replace old windows? You would rather continue to pay the increased energy costs from leaky windows? (Oh yeah, and more water damage...)
You would prefer to continue to see young families move to the burbs where they have "nice facilities" and where the communities are willing to "invest in education..."
Save a penny, waste a pound...
If you want to attract people to Tulsa we need good schools. This includes good facilities and well-maintained buildings. It's also acceptable to upgrade technology. (Oh, the times, they are a changin...). And buy books. And support arts education. And physical education.
Voting "yes" will not raise your taxes. This will simply continue what you're currently paying...which is nothing when you compare Tulsa to any other city in America.
I can't decide if we're so stupid b/c we're so cheap--or if we're so cheap b/c we're so stupid.
I don't get it either, it seems like a no-brainer to vote yes to me. Like I said I can't imagine this not passing but I worry about people being misinformed.
Quote from: SXSW on March 02, 2010, 03:34:38 PM
I don't get it either, it seems like a no-brainer to vote yes to me. Like I said I can't imagine this not passing but I worry about people being misinformed.
No-brainer as in people who don't have a brain? ;) No-brainers vote no!
I hope this passes. It will do enormous good for the district. I hope they're shovel-ready!
Quote from: SXSW on March 02, 2010, 03:34:38 PM
I don't get it either, it seems like a no-brainer to vote yes to me. Like I said I can't imagine this not passing but I worry about people being misinformed.
Or voting no over bathroom stall doors 15 years ago.
Quote from: swake on March 02, 2010, 03:44:27 PM
Or voting no over bathroom stall doors 15 years ago.
And the fact that there might not be bathroom stall doors BECAUSE of people who vote down bond issues?
Had a friend at the same polling location just tell me she was 133.
Quote from: dsjeffries on March 02, 2010, 03:52:25 PM
And the fact that there might not be bathroom stall doors BECAUSE of people who vote down bond issues?
Actually because they were trying to control drugs. So no, not because of the bond issue. I have changed my mind on one part of the bond issue though, I will vote for the one that goes to repair East Central's building. The rest is teacher luxury.
Quote from: TURobY on March 02, 2010, 04:39:11 PM
Had a friend at the same polling location just tell me she was 133.
Hopefully the low turnout will benefit the passage of this bond. Norman just overwhelmingly passed a similar bond and it would look really bad if Tulsa can't do the same.
Quote from: SXSW on March 02, 2010, 05:03:42 PM
Hopefully the low turnout will benefit the passage of this bond. Norman just overwhelmingly passed a similar bond and it would look really bad if Tulsa can't do the same.
Additionally, I know more people who go to vote after work than I know who go before work, so that might also give the numbers a bit of a bump.
Quote from: brianh on March 02, 2010, 04:40:01 PM
Actually because they were trying to control drugs. So no, not because of the bond issue. I have changed my mind on one part of the bond issue though, I will vote for the one that goes to repair East Central's building. The rest is teacher luxury.
Really? "Teacher luxury"?
People like you are why people like me live in the Jenks school district.
#159. Voted yes on all issues. Only have one kid left in the public school system, with just two years remaining in a well built, well maintained, high standards high school. I could just figure, oh well, nothing for me to gain here. However, others voted for the improved schools I attended that are now in poor condition. If you believe in progress and support education so that the city may be competitive and prosper, I can't see any justification for voting no on any of them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 02, 2010, 12:26:00 PM
Reminds me of Boot Camp.
In some boot camps, there were no stalls.
Looks like all measures passed, each with a nearly 75% vote of 'For'.
Im very excited about this vote for the city of Tulsa.
I saw a local news segment yesterday interviewing opposing viewpoints as they were presented at the intersection of 41st/Yale. The opposing 'vote no' crowd had dubbed themselves the U.S. Patriots. When in the hell did Patriotism become synonomous with voting down school bond issues? Or, is this representative of a historic association with early patriots fighting against British rule/taxation? I personally found it odd.
I take the opposite viewpoint in that voting 'for' school bond issues is patriotic. I tend to want my country to be comprised of very educated individuals with equal access to quality facilities and so on and so forth. My taxation is represented by my local school board member who has direct accountibility to me, the voter, who then has the responsibility to make decisions on how our tax monies are distributed, managed... If there's waste and all the other nasty things the 'no voters' complain about shouldn't they be focussed on school board races instead - to get better oversight?
Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 03, 2010, 01:14:10 PM
Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/
Wow, their logo looks like it should be on a baseball jersey.
When I saw them waving a Christian flag aorund (which had ZERO to do with the bond measure) at that intersection, I immediately dismissed them. Having now looked at their site, I realize that I chose the right course of action.
I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?! What does a more conservative plan look like to them? If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 03, 2010, 01:14:10 PM
Actually they are officially "The USA Patriots":
http://www.theusapatriots.com/
It's clear they're teabaggers. And, as the protest showed yesterday, teabaggers aren't known for logic.
Quote from: OurTulsa on March 03, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?! What does a more conservative plan look like to them? If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it.
These people say they want good schools but then don't want to pay for the schools. I'm just glad they represent a very small minority in our city as seen by the 73% that voted in favor of the bond issue and keeping property taxes at current levels, which in fact are lower than most surrounding suburban communities.
Quote from: OurTulsa on March 03, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
I didn't dig into their website but on the front page it clearly states they 'honor' family values, school, and education!?! What does a more conservative plan look like to them? If involved any form of TAX I suspect they'd oppose it.
There really doesn't seem to be that much to dig into on there site. It either is a link to news media website, their store, how to join and the next tea party meetings, and the vote no on the bond info.
BTW "Institutionalizing 3 year olds" ? ???
I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.
It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 03, 2010, 03:44:52 PM
I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.
It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?
Six! That's a 33% increase from the four that I saw at around 10:30 in the morning. Watch out for their growing hordes. ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 03, 2010, 03:44:52 PM
I was amazed at how much TV time this small group of protestors got on this issue. I saw at least four different stories.
It looked like they only had about six people in their protest when the cameras were there. Are the local television stations that desperate to find controversy that they felt complelled to cover a carload of anti-taxers?
Bars and liquor stores are closed since it's election day, so it was a slow news day. Besides I'm willing to bet that they alerted the media that they were going to be there so they could record it and send it to Uncle Glenn.
Quote from: dbacks fan on March 03, 2010, 02:58:01 PM
BTW "Institutionalizing 3 year olds" ? ???
I'm sure that's a reference to Head Start or some other early education program.
From what I understand they were advocating pay-as-you-go over the bond with the Millions in bond fees, etc.
I talked to some people from the right who oppose the head start programs, so that may be what they are talking about. If 1 is liberal and 10 is conservative, they were probably about a 12.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 04, 2010, 07:30:57 AM
I talked to some people from the right who oppose the head start programs, so that may be what they are talking about. If 1 is liberal and 10 is conservative, they were probably about a 12.
As much as I hate to admit it, I found out the other night that my mother is of this group against head start. Her reason why is because there is nothing that shows that these help out. Not to mention the comment of "I don't remember anything that I learned from that early, can you?". She didn't like it when I looked at her and asked if she could still read and write.
Some conservatives who are fighting for limited government don't understand what and why they are fighting for. It boils down to them as all government is bad.
The problem with the FEDERAL government controlling everything is that it is too big, the scale is too corruptible, efficiency is lost through too much bureaucracy, and so on. The limitations the founders (tried to) put on the FEDERAL government were in the interest of decentralized powers, that way no one entity grows so huge as to become out of control and unstoppable.
There are ultra-conservative viewpoints such as Ron Paul saying we should get rid of the Department of Education altogether. This isn't to say, however, that we shouldn't have education and schools at all. The issue is decentralized powers. Some things do need management and governance. It is merely an issue of "On what level?". If you are against the federal level, you should want the local level to be STRONGER and not be parroting the same sentiment at your local community as you do towards Washington.
So here we have (had) a local school district bond issue. We need schools. Education is an investment into the community that benefits everyone. It has economic benefits that far surpass the money spent so long as waste is kept in check. What better level to handle things on than the local school district level?
Quote from: YoungTulsan on March 04, 2010, 10:02:57 AM
The problem with the FEDERAL government controlling everything is that it is too big, the scale is too corruptible, efficiency is lost through too much bureaucracy, and so on. The limitations the founders (tried to) put on the FEDERAL government were in the interest of decentralized powers, that way no one entity grows so huge as to become out of control and unstoppable.
That's a good point, except that the founding fathers themselves tended not to follow their own advice. John Adams' Sedition Act centralized a lot of government power, and Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase sure as hell did the same thing.
I think the founding fathers liked the *idea* of decentralized power, but ultimately were pragmatic depending on the situation. I admit that if I were Jefferson and saw a huge chunk of undeveloped land for sale at a bargain-basement price, I'd sure as hell not be a purist about decentralized powers and turn the purchase down.
Also, the founding fathers were dealing with a nation that was just 13 colonies. I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be purists about decentralized power when it came to highways, water systems, power grid, etc., for a population of 300 million people.
And the argument about decentralized powers dissipates when you're talking about constitutional rights. The "state's rights" argument tended to be used a lot more, but turned into a joke over the obvious unfairness of slavery, racial discrimination, etc. You don't want power decentralized to a point where each state become its own fiefdom. We are the *United* States, after all. There has to be a point where each state, however sloppily, is lurching in the same direction.
It's a tricky balance, but I think we've done pretty well with that so far.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 04, 2010, 10:27:54 AM
That's a good point, except that the founding fathers themselves tended not to follow their own advice. John Adams' Sedition Act centralized a lot of government power, and Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase sure as hell did the same thing.
I think the founding fathers liked the *idea* of decentralized power, but ultimately were pragmatic depending on the situation. I admit that if I were Jefferson and saw a huge chunk of undeveloped land for sale at a bargain-basement price, I'd sure as hell not be a purist about decentralized powers and turn the purchase down.
Also, the founding fathers were dealing with a nation that was just 13 colonies. I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be purists about decentralized power when it came to highways, water systems, power grid, etc., for a population of 300 million people.
And the argument about decentralized powers dissipates when you're talking about constitutional rights. The "state's rights" argument tended to be used a lot more, but turned into a joke over the obvious unfairness of slavery, racial discrimination, etc. You don't want power decentralized to a point where each state become its own fiefdom. We are the *United* States, after all. There has to be a point where each state, however sloppily, is lurching in the same direction.
It's a tricky balance, but I think we've done pretty well with that so far.
I am not sure the founding fathers were really against a centeralized government. Jefferson perhaps, but others, such as Adams, seem more for the idea of a strong, central government. I think they all understood that it ws needed to hold us together as a nation. The problem they had though was that there were 13 states to convince to join together under this government that had a soveriegn power that none of which really wanted to give up. So they had to create a central government that did not threaten the individual states ability to govern on a local level. Of course they also also said (I think it was madison in the federalist paper #10) that the federal governement should have less employees then a staate government, so we can see what happened with that.
With regards to founders who made power centralizing moves: I think anyone who attains a position of power is going to test the limits, which is precisely why we need to have those limits on the government. The founders didn't all believe the same things, but they came to an agreement on what limitations would best keep the federal government from turning into a monster, or what they had just revolted from in Britain.
Infrastructure I agree on. It is a legit role of the federal government to help the states collectively have a larger economic output through the most efficient exchange of goods and services. It benefits us all. Fund infrastructure through use and consumption taxes, so we can drop the whole donor state/leech state argument.
With things like slavery, it is truly sad that it wasn't explicitly abolished in the founding of the nation, but the constitution can be amended, there is a process for it. Any issue of basic human rights should be amended to the constitution so that they supersede the right of States to become "fiefdoms".
Now I've derailed the thread I see. I was mainly just trying to poke at the "no to everything" conservatives who would blindly reject a local school district proposal as if its passing would be the same as an expanding federal government which currently has their attention.